Definition for Anirvachaniya

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

In my previous post I had said that even Isvara is mithya. Lest this be

taken as blasphemous, let me explain. mithya does not mean unreal or false,

though the word mithya is translated as 'falsity' for want of a proper

equivalent. Since the concept of mithya is exclusive to advaita and is not

known in any other school of philosophy, whether Indian or western, there is

no equivalent word for it in English. mithya only means 'not of the same

level of reality as brahman'. brahman alone is absolutely real. The world

has empirical reality, but not absolute reality like brahman. Kenopanishad

says that brahman is not what is worshipped.

 

(nedam yadidam upAsate). Sankara says in his bhAshya on this mantra that

Isvara, etc., who are worshipped are not brahman. So it is clear that even

Isvara does not have the same level of realty as brahman. But as long as we

are in ignorance the world, God, etc., are real for us because they have

empirical reality and we have to worship God. Isvara controls mAyA. As the

Lord says in the Gita, only those who take refuge in Him can cross over

mAyA.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On 12/17/07, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

> .

>

> If mithyA is anirvacanIya by authority, there is

> nothing under the

> Sun now left for us to describe in words because

> everything we have

> is mithyA.

- That includes the sun too. Shankara says anything

perceived is mithyaa - dRisyatvaat -Hence all

pramaaNas that operate where there is pramaata,

prameyam and pramaaNa - all come under mithyaa only -

that include even the Vedas too as a part of para

vidya.

 

 

namaste

 

I think, we have shruthi pramANa for the above illustration of sri sadananda

ji

 

Br.up.4.3.22.S.B.—*atra cha etat prakr.tam-*------- " In this state a father

is no father, a mother is no mother, worlds are no worlds, the gods are no

gods, the Vedas are no Vedas. In this state a thief is no thief, the killer

of a noble *braahmaNa* is no killer, and so on " .

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/vedastates.html

 

thanks

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

 

SrI Nairji, sa prEm namastE,

 

mahASaya,

 

It seems from your words that you were seriously offended by my posts.

Sincere apologies for the mistake that I might have done.

 

Nonetheless, I feel there is a need for me to address the points you

have raised to clear my stand.

 

You Wrote:--

 

> If mithyA is anirvacanIya by authority, there is nothing under the

> Sun now left for us to describe in words because everything we have

> is mithyA. What is our Captain Shri Dennis-ji, therefore, trying to

> do? Compiling a list of definitions for novices to Advaita? Oh,

> what a futility in the light of the above conclusion! But, he seems

> to have succeeded in his attempts. Instead of mere definitions, he

> is getting solid essays from different enthusiastic contributors!

> Ramesh-ji has written at length on mithyA itself which our scholars

> avow is indescribable. How come?

 

My Reply:-- Does a person know that it is mithyA without realizing

brahman? After realizing brahman as truth and jagat as mithyA, what

does he say(with his samskAra lESa due to prArabdha), that " I saw

world " or that " I had an illusion that I saw world " ?

 

The former assertion is not possible, for the Realization of

adhishThANa is indifferent from its effects(i.e. Taking the world to

be real), as SrI Sankara says. Now the latter assertion is the only

tenable one.

 

Following the arthApatti we can say, the denial of world would mean

the un-reality of the world.

 

So neither can we say " it was " nor that " it was not " . This

indeterminability accounts for the anirvachanIyata.

 

Taking the classical example of superimposition of Silver on Nacre,

As long as the person sees Silver in Nacre, he keeps on describing its

size, shape, lustre etc. But as soon as he realizes the adishThAna

i.e. Nacre, the " silver " that he has seen all the time becomes

indescribable. For the one who is still under illusion, if we keep a

piece of real silver beside the illusory silver, he cannot distinguish

between the two. But once after he realizes the mithAtva of Silver,

that illusory Silver which was *truly* perceived by his own senses is

contradicted by the real silver that is present beside it. Now he

simply says, " I had an illusion that I saw Silver " . If we ask him,

" Then what did you see in place of Nacre? " He says, " I saw *something*

similar to Silver " like SrI Sankara says, " SuktikA hi rajatavat

avabhAsatE " . This rajata *vat*, thus denotes the inexplicability of

Silver.

 

If we ask, how could he superimpose Silver if he had not seen the real

silver elsewhere?

 

SrI Sankara says, " smRiti rUpaH paratra pUrvadRishTAvabhAsaH " !

 

How can the world be pUrvadRishTa? -- Because it follows from a

previous adhyAsa. It doesn't mean that the world was real in a

previous adhyAsa, for that adhyAsa itself was pUrvadRishTa. Thus it

makes adhyAsa/avidyA anAdi.

 

Finally, the most important thing is that, the anirvachanIyatva of

mithyA is ascertained *only* after the realization of adhishThAna but

not before that.

 

--------------------------

 

You Wrote:

 

> If so, both avidyA and mithyA are not

> strictly indescribable. They are describable. They are so because

I conclude advaitically that I have avidyA and because I experience a

> mithyA world populated by mithyA objects.

 

 

My Reply:-- mahASaya, how can you say you have avidyA? And what is the

proof to say that this world is mithyA?

 

IMHO, one says that he has avidyA or that the world is mithyA only

because he believes in what SrI Sankara says. Otherwise, if avidyA and

mithyAtva were in our daily experience, even people of other

darshaNAs and religions would have had no problem with advaita.

 

IMO, the *only* proof to say that a jIva has avidyA is AtmasAkshAtkAra!

 

That is to say, One can say that " the Silver he is seeing is illusory

which is seen due to his ignorance of the substratum " , *only* after

realizing the real nature of Nacre and thereby ascertaining the

falsity of Silver.

 

But then, after realizing the reality of Nacre and unreality of

Silver, how can he describe the Silver which was not really Silver?

 

What was seen as Silver? -- Nacre.

But how is the Silver seen? -- Not known. Hence that *something* which

actually appeared as Silver is anirvachanIya. This " something " is not

Nacre. Nor is it Silver. Nor is it something over and above the

Substratum(Nacre) on which it was superimposed. Hence, it is sarvathA

anirvachanIya!

 

-------------------------

 

You Wrote:--

 

> Then, what did Padmapada, Sureshwara et al mean? They probably meant

> that the `cause' or `origin' of avidyA which erects mithyA is

> indescribable because it can't be known. That is why avidyA is

> described as anAdi. Mind you all, even anAdi is a description.

 

My Reply:-- IMO, the anirvachanIyatva of avidyA is derived based upon

the gIta SlOka,

" nAsatO vidyatE bhAvO nAbhAvO vidyatE sataH

ubhayOrapi drishTo antaH tvanayOH tatva darshibhiH "

 

Meaning:-- Of the unreal there is no existence, and of the real there

is no cessation; the conclusion between both the two has been analyzed

by knower of the truth.

 

## Since avidyA is existing now, it cannot be unreal. But as it exists

not on the dawn of perfect knowledge, it cannot be real either. So it

is neither real nor unreal and is avyakta.

 

The anirvachanIyatva of avidyA is regarding its truth value.

 

Again, how can anAdi be a description? anAditva is a logical

necessity. Otherwise, it will be like saying, " anirvachanIya " itself

is a description of avidyA.

 

IMHO, anAditva of avidyA is not an experienced fact. Hence it cannot

be a description. We describe only the things of which we are aware

of. anAditva is only inferred from the fact that adhyAsa needs

pUrvAdRishTha as an essential criterion and also that the Creation

might have occurred only due to the impulsion of the past karmas of

jIvas.

 

anAdi indeed is the best expression hinting at the anirvachanIyatva of

avidyA/adhyAsa.

 

-

 

You Wrote:--

 

> Only something about which we have and can have no knowledge is

> indescribable.

 

My Reply:-- IMO, indescribability is from the standpoint of a jnAni

but not from the standpoint of an ajnAni. I mean to say, the words of

wisdom are to be taught only by the realized ones but not by the

ignorant ones.

 

For example, if a person who superimposes Silver on Nacre and is still

under that delusion has to note down his experience, he goes on

describing the silver because he is *able* to perceive the Silver

right over there.

But, from the standpoint of ultimate reality, what he has described

has no value and he never says, " I saw Silver " .

 

Sorry for repeating the same analogy again and again!

 

Kindly correct my mistakes, if any.

 

Yours,

SAMPATH.

[Guest guest]

Our Respected Sadaji observes :

 

(The same thing is described by Bhagavaan Ramanuja as

Liila vibhuuti of the Lord where he does not agree of

any thing that is mithyaa - for him that which is not

sat is asat and that which is asat is)

 

Sadaji , is this a 'freudian' slip ? did you mean to refer to

Bhagwan Ramana or sri Ramanuacharya ? please explain .

 

This note is for shastriji :

 

Shastriji, i am glad you issued an explanation for your earlier post

wherin You had stated that " even Isvara is Mithya "

 

For a bhakta jnani Ishwara is as real as BraHman!

 

Sri Adi Shankara Bhagvadapada in his last composition 'Prtabodha

Sudhakaram " sings thus

 

kAmyopAsana yArthayanty anudinaM kincit phalaM svepsitam,

kecit svargam athApavargam apare yogAdi yajnAdibhiH,

asmAkaM yadunandanAMghri yugala dhyAnAvadhAnArthinAm,

kiM lokena damena kiM nRpatinA svargApavargaizca kiM? (verse 150)

 

 

" Those who waste their time for the attainment of

celestial joys or liberation (mukti- apavarga) are Fools!

 

I do NOT want any of that!

 

I only desire to remain engrossed in the sweet remembrance

of the lotus feet of Lord Krishna.

What is the need for pleasures of this world or heaven or

Mukti to exalted Prema bhaktas of the Lord? "

 

Thus Sri Shankara appears to consider all objects, including final

liberation as insignificant in comparison to constant loving

meditation of the lotus feet of his beloved Lord, Sri Krishna.

 

Shastriji , prabodha Sudhakara is supposed to be a text

of 'Samanvaya shatra' where Bhakti meets jnana in exalted union!

 

Jaya jaya shankara

 

Hara Hara Shankara

 

Vande jagadgurm Shankaracharyam!

 

 

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

A SMALL CORRECTION:--

 

I have written:--

 

The former assertion is not possible, for the Realization of

adhishThANa is indifferent from its effects(i.e. Taking the world to

be real), as SrI Sankara says. Now the latter assertion is the only

tenable one.

 

AFTER CORRECTION:--

 

The former assertion is not possible, for the Realization of

adhishThANa is indifferent from its effects(i.e. CESSATION OF AVIDYA

AND THEREBY NOT taking the world to

be real), as SrI Sankara says. Now the latter assertion is the only

tenable one.

 

Yours,

SAMPATH.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Shri Sastri ji & Shri Sampath ji,

In BS.Bashya II.i.27, Sankara says, `Brahman is the centrifugal

subject among all forms for transformations modifications with

respect to the multitude differences caused by names and forms that

which cannot be determined either as real or unreal, as imagined by

ignorance.' In BS. Bashya II.i.14 Acarya adds, `The seeds of

empirical existence constituted by names and forms, which are due to

manifestations of Avidya are non-different from the supreme Isvara.

Such Avidya is indeterminable either as real or unreal. Shruti and

Smrti calls this indeterminability as power of Maya of the

omniscient God or as Prakrti, the primordial Nature.

 

Acarya's contextual usage of the term Anirvacaniya is shown as below.

· Avidya kalpitena ca nama rupa laksanena rupa bedena vyakrta

avyakrtAtmakena tatva anyatvAbhyAm Anirvacaniyena Brahma parinAmAdi

sarva vyavaharAspadatvam pratipadyate

 

· Sarvajnasya IswarasyAtmabuta iva AvidyAkalpita nAmarupe

tatva anyatvAbhyAm Anirvacaniye samsAra prapanca bIja buta

Sarvajnasya Iswarasya Maya sakthi prakrti iti ca

SrutiSmrtiyorabilapyate

 

Sureswara in Br.Vartika points out Maya as 'Sarva nyAya Virodini'.

So the Acarya uses indeterminability mainly to explain Avidya than

Maya. One may discern these in a different sense, like the bhamati

version. Avidya is taken to be an aspect of Maya where the former

and latter are connected with causal relations.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha

wrote:

>

 

> Avidya is taken to be an aspect of Maya where the former

> and latter are connected with causal relations.

>

 

 

Namaste,

 

The following note may be useful:

 

http://www.angelfire.com/co/advaitavedanta/Appendix3.html

 

ADVAITA VEDANTA

 

D Krishna Ayyar

 

APPENDIX 3

EXPLANATORY NOTES

 

Note No. 12 – How Maya operates

 

The word, avidya, used in Sastra (translated as " nescience " in

English) is a technical term. Avidya and Maya are synonyms. (Other

terms used for Maya are " avyakta " . " avyakruta " , prakriti " . Sometimes,

the word " ajnanam " which literally means ignorance, is also used as a

technical term for avidya. But none of these terms, not even the

word, " ajnanam " should be confused with the word " ignorance " used in

common parlance). Avidya (Maya) is a positive entity. Maya is

constituted of three factors, satva, rajas and tamas. Maya is matter.

At the macrocosmic level, with the Brahman-consciousness reflected in

Maya, there is Isvara. Thus Isvara has two aspects – the

consciousness aspect and the matter aspect. Iswara in his

consciousness aspect visualises the pattern of creation suited to the

requirements of the karma of the jivas and impels the matter aspect

containing the universe including the sukshma sariras of jivas and

the karmas of jivas in seed form to unfold into the universe of

diffentiated objects. This unfolding is the vikshepa sakti of Maya

at the samashti (macrocsomic) level. Iswara is not affected by the

avarana sakti of Maya and is therefore ever aware of his true nature

being Brahman. At the vyashti (microcosmic) level, in so far as

jivas are concerned, both the avarana sakti and the vikshepa sakti of

Maya come into play. The avarana sakti makes jivas ignorant of their

true nature as Brahman and the vikshepa sakti makes them identity

with the body mind complex and regard the world with its divisions to

be the reality. Avarana Sakti is indicated in Kathopanishad mantra

I.iii.12. In Pancadasi, Vidyaranya gives an ingenious explanation for

the avarana sakti being non–operative at the macrocosmic level and

being operative at the microcosmic level. He says that at the

macrocosmic level, avidya is satva predominant, whereas at the

microcosmic level, it is tamas rajas predominant.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh

wrote:

>

> advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha@>

> wrote:

> >

>

> > Avidya is taken to be an aspect of Maya where the former

> > and latter are connected with causal relations.

> >

>

> The following note may be useful:

>

> http://www.angelfire.com/co/advaitavedanta/Appendix3.html

 

 

Namaste,

 

Sri Sastriji has provided definitions for many terms in Vedanta

which should be studied too:

 

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/vedacontent.html

 

Adhyaasa (Superimposition)

 

Advaita-jnaana and upaasanaa (Non-dual realization and Meditations)

 

Aatmaa –the indwelling self.

 

Avidyaa (Nescience)

 

Avidyanivritti

 

Ahamkaara..

 

Brahman..

 

Cause and effect..

 

Creation..

 

Creation of the subtle elements..

 

Creation of the organs of sense.

 

Creation of the organs of action..

 

Creation of the antaHkaraNam or internal instrument..

 

Creation of praaNa (vital air)

 

Quintuplication of the elements

 

The three bodies of the individual soul

 

The five sheaths..

 

The three states..

 

Jiiva (the individual soul)

 

iis'vara..

 

maayaa..

 

jnaanam and dhyaanam--- difference.

 

karma..

 

mukti (liberation)

 

The path of the manes and the path of the gods..

 

Transmigration..

 

Om—the symbol and name of Brahman..

 

The Mahaavaakyas..

 

The means to Self-realization..

 

The four preliminary requisites..

 

The scope of reasoning (tarka)

 

Two kinds of Vision..

 

The Process of Visual perception..

 

`Upanishad'—meaning..

 

Mind, vital force and speech..

 

Upaasanam (Meditation)

 

`Deva' and `Asura' ---- Meaning..

 

PariNaama and Vivarta..

 

 

Regards,

Sunder

[Guest guest]

--- bhagini_niveditaa <bhagini_niveditaa

wrote:

 

>

> Sadaji , is this a 'freudian' slip ? did you mean to

> refer to

> Bhagwan Ramana or sri Ramanuacharya ? please explain

 

Bhaginiji - PraNAms.

 

I was referring to Bhagavaan Ramanuja only

-VishiShTaadvaita (I am sure dvaita as well) do not

to mithyaa - they accept only sat and asat -

that which is not sat is asat and that which is not

asat is sat.

 

Maaya is parameswara shakti (diivam eshaa guNa mayi

mama maayaa duratyayaa) and creation is grossification

of subtle to gross, done out of compassion for the

jiivas, who need to evolve. The manifested world is

His vibhuuti - it is His Leela Vibhuuti - it

constitutes only 1/4 of his glory. VaikunTa, if you

happen to get visa there, you will find the rest of

the 3/4 called divya vibhuuti.

 

My Freudian slip came in the last sentence of mine in

that post which should have said that which is not sat

is asat and that which is not asat is sat. There is no

mithyaa - according to them it is introduced by

advaitins who do not know how to explain and claim it

is anirvacaniiyam, of course to save themselves, as

you can see the number of posts on that which cannot

be defined. Bhagavan Ramanuja provides seven

untenables regarding the avidya aspect of advaita in

his B. Sutra bhaashya, which we have discussed before,

one aspect of it is criticising the anirvacaniiyam

aspect.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sampat.

 

Your post 38596.

 

I was tied up with too many things personal. Hence, this delayed

response.

 

Yes. I was mortified and justifiably so. I had closed shop when

Padmapada et al were brought in and requested that there was no need

to import from Shankara.

 

I can't answer your post line by line. Often, I have difficulty

distinguishing between what you are quoting and what you are saying.

I see that your general drive is in the following direction (in your

own words). I would therefore restrict myself to commenting on it.

 

QUOTE

 

Finally, the most important thing is that, the anirvachanIyatva of

mithyA is ascertained *only* after the realization of adhishThAna but

not before that.

………

IMO, indescribability is from the standpoint of a jnAni but not from

the standpoint of an ajnAni. I mean to say, the words of wisdom are

to be taught only by the realized ones but not by the ignorant ones.

 

UNQUOTE

 

I would like to point out the following and close shop again:

 

1. You seem to advocate that one should not exercise logic and

reason before accepting the words of preceptors. That is blind

acceptance and I don't know how far our tradition of enquiry will

accommodate it.

 

2. When self-knowledge occurs, mithyA is no more there. One who

has realized will not talk about it. He is in communication with

himself only and that himself naturally includes one and all. One

may point out that Shankara has talked. That is the point of view of

ajnAnis still languishing in mithyA. Shankara and his words are a

mithyA projection. We may call it Providence guiding. It has

relevance only in the mithyA world where ajnAnis operate. When and

if at all an ajnAni self-realizes, he will *know* that he himself is

Shankara. There is no mithyA or anirvacanIyata then.

 

3. Nacre-silver is just an analogy. It can't be applied one

hundred percent to self-realization. When nacre is realized, the

memory that it was first seen as silver still remains. With self-

realization one can't anticipate such a hang-over. A hang-over of

the mithyA, even for the purpose of teaching the unfortunate non-

realized ones (Where are they for the one who has realized?), is a

sure sign that knowledge has not occurred. (Mind you, I don't mean

academic knowledge here.).

 

4. I can't visualize the *state* of the realized one from my

mithyA platform without using mithyA words. But, if advaita is right,

the realized one has no more any mithyA bothering him as objective

phenomena like it is for ajnAnis.

 

5. If a jnAni has said that anything is anirvacanIya, then that

simply is an ajnAni's mithyA understanding of a mithyA statement by a

mithyA jnAni in the mithyA world.

 

6. Logically, therefore, self-realization annihilates

indescribability. In my knowledge of myself in self-realization,

what is anirvacanIya? If anirvacanIyata remains, then the knowledge

is not self-knowledge.

 

7. Describing is a preoccupation for the non-realized. It is the

non-realized ones in mithyA that want explanations, descriptions and

definitions.

 

For all these reasons, anirvacanIyata totally belongs to the

phenomenal mithyA. It is a big mistake to mix it with a jnAni's

standpoint. He has no standpoint at all.

 

The only thing anirvacanIya in our mithyA ocean of advaitic words is

the paradox of the One becoming many. The paradox is no more there

for the realized one because he knows the One as One. No creation

has ever taken place for him. No mithyA was, therefore, ever created

for him to label it anirvacanIya. AnirvacanIyata is there only for

the ones who see many in the place of the One and only One.

 

The reason for our false understanding may be avidya and we can

describe it as such. Most of what we see (mithyA) can also be

described as we do day in and day out. But the questions why avidya,

why the delusion and how it takes place are difficult to answer

without admitting contradictions like immutability vs. cause-effect,

immutability vs. pariNAma etc. That is the paradox of the immutable

one manifesting as many – the only thing anirvacanIya.

 

Our mithyA phenomenal works on certain rules and logic which demand

that we be specific in our language. By calling mithyA anirvacanIya,

we are illogically imposing indescribability on all and sundry and

losing focus of what actually is indescribable, i.e. the above

paradox. Describability and indescribability being purely of the

mithyA, such an approach is sadly unscientific. If mithyA is

indescribable, we would not have had languages or words which are our

descriptive tools.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

 

praNAmaH SrI Nair ji mahASaya,

sAshTAnga danDa praNAmaH,

 

I am greatly indebted to you for your kind feedback. You have clearly

shown how I have been humiliating the elders with my arrogant behavior.

My deepest apologizes for all that I have done. I have realized that I

am unfit to reply to you regarding the vEdAntic concepts we have been

discussing.

 

My sincere deepest apologies to SrI Bhaskar ji also for that I have

been arguing with him with my limited understanding. He has been

replying to all my silly objections with great patience. I regret my

mistakes and I have clearly realized my limitations.

 

I need only your blessings, nothing else.

 

Thank you everyone once again for the great privilege you have given

me and I apologize for having misused that.

 

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

 

Yours ever in the Lord,

SAMPATH.

 

=========================

> Namaste Shri Sampat.

>

> Your post 38596.

>

> I was tied up with too many things personal. Hence, this delayed

> response.

>

> Yes. I was mortified and justifiably so. I had closed shop when

> Padmapada et al were brought in and requested that there was no need

> to import from Shankara.

>

> I can't answer your post line by line. Often, I have difficulty

> distinguishing between what you are quoting and what you are saying.

> I see that your general drive is in the following direction (in your

> own words). I would therefore restrict myself to commenting on it.

>

> QUOTE

>

> Finally, the most important thing is that, the anirvachanIyatva of

> mithyA is ascertained *only* after the realization of adhishThAna but

> not before that.

> ………

> IMO, indescribability is from the standpoint of a jnAni but not from

> the standpoint of an ajnAni. I mean to say, the words of wisdom are

> to be taught only by the realized ones but not by the ignorant ones.

>

> UNQUOTE

>

> I would like to point out the following and close shop again:

>

> 1. You seem to advocate that one should not exercise logic and

> reason before accepting the words of preceptors. That is blind

> acceptance and I don't know how far our tradition of enquiry will

> accommodate it.

>

> 2. When self-knowledge occurs, mithyA is no more there. One who

> has realized will not talk about it. He is in communication with

> himself only and that himself naturally includes one and all. One

> may point out that Shankara has talked. That is the point of view of

> ajnAnis still languishing in mithyA. Shankara and his words are a

> mithyA projection. We may call it Providence guiding. It has

> relevance only in the mithyA world where ajnAnis operate. When and

> if at all an ajnAni self-realizes, he will *know* that he himself is

> Shankara. There is no mithyA or anirvacanIyata then.

>

> 3. Nacre-silver is just an analogy. It can't be applied one

> hundred percent to self-realization. When nacre is realized, the

> memory that it was first seen as silver still remains. With self-

> realization one can't anticipate such a hang-over. A hang-over of

> the mithyA, even for the purpose of teaching the unfortunate non-

> realized ones (Where are they for the one who has realized?), is a

> sure sign that knowledge has not occurred. (Mind you, I don't mean

> academic knowledge here.).

>

> 4. I can't visualize the *state* of the realized one from my

> mithyA platform without using mithyA words. But, if advaita is right,

> the realized one has no more any mithyA bothering him as objective

> phenomena like it is for ajnAnis.

>

> 5. If a jnAni has said that anything is anirvacanIya, then that

> simply is an ajnAni's mithyA understanding of a mithyA statement by a

> mithyA jnAni in the mithyA world.

>

> 6. Logically, therefore, self-realization annihilates

> indescribability. In my knowledge of myself in self-realization,

> what is anirvacanIya? If anirvacanIyata remains, then the knowledge

> is not self-knowledge.

>

> 7. Describing is a preoccupation for the non-realized. It is the

> non-realized ones in mithyA that want explanations, descriptions and

> definitions.

>

> For all these reasons, anirvacanIyata totally belongs to the

> phenomenal mithyA. It is a big mistake to mix it with a jnAni's

> standpoint. He has no standpoint at all.

>

> The only thing anirvacanIya in our mithyA ocean of advaitic words is

> the paradox of the One becoming many. The paradox is no more there

> for the realized one because he knows the One as One. No creation

> has ever taken place for him. No mithyA was, therefore, ever created

> for him to label it anirvacanIya. AnirvacanIyata is there only for

> the ones who see many in the place of the One and only One.

>

> The reason for our false understanding may be avidya and we can

> describe it as such. Most of what we see (mithyA) can also be

> described as we do day in and day out. But the questions why avidya,

> why the delusion and how it takes place are difficult to answer

> without admitting contradictions like immutability vs. cause-effect,

> immutability vs. pariNAma etc. That is the paradox of the immutable

> one manifesting as many – the only thing anirvacanIya.

>

> Our mithyA phenomenal works on certain rules and logic which demand

> that we be specific in our language. By calling mithyA anirvacanIya,

> we are illogically imposing indescribability on all and sundry and

> losing focus of what actually is indescribable, i.e. the above

> paradox. Describability and indescribability being purely of the

> mithyA, such an approach is sadly unscientific. If mithyA is

> indescribable, we would not have had languages or words which are our

> descriptive tools.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

[Guest guest]

My sincere deepest apologies to SrI Bhaskar ji also for that I have

been arguing with him with my limited understanding. He has been

replying to all my silly objections with great patience. I regret my

mistakes and I have clearly realized my limitations.

 

 

praNAms Sri Sampath prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

No need for any apologies... & kindly, dont be under the impression that

you are the only one arguing here...I am also equally (over) enthusiastic

in engaging myself in endless debates with very very meagre knowledge I've

on shankarAdvaita...Anyway, I've learnt a lot from your goodself

prabhuji....Let us not think that it is mere argument, we can take it as

friendly *vichAra vinimayaM*. Hope you would continue the discussion with

me. (on or off the list...whichever way you like :-))

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sampat,

 

I told you frankly how I felt. I didn't expect you to be sentimental

over it.

 

I clearly remember that, on your debut to the List, I described you

as " scholarship and clarity going hand-in-hand " . Often I wish I had

read at least one percent of what you have read and assimilated at

your very young age. I have no reason to change my opinion. Please

therefore forget what happened. Perhaps, you were a little over-

enthusiastic. Not arrogant.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________

 

advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

 

> I am greatly indebted to you for your kind feedback. You have

clearly

> shown how I have been humiliating the elders with my arrogant

behavior.

> My deepest apologizes for all that I have done. I have realized

that I

> am unfit to reply to you regarding the vEdAntic concepts we have

been

> discussing.

[Guest guest]

hare krishna, namaskarams

advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

 

> I am greatly indebted to you for your kind feedback. You have

clearly

> shown how I have been humiliating the elders with my arrogant

behavior.

> My deepest apologizes for all that I have done. I have realized

that I

> am unfit to reply to you regarding the vEdAntic concepts we have

been

> discussing.

 

knowledge is an ocean and spirtual knowledge of brahman is unfathomable

and unknowable. all that we can do is enjoy standing at the shore,sense the

cool waters and comprehend a little of what our intelectual eye can see. we

could be right and also wrong at times in this study of brahman where no one

can claim absolute authority.

 

the deepest apologies show your character and may lord krishna bless you more

with all that you seek

 

baskaran

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASKARAN.C.S

 

 

 

Save all your chat conversations. Find them online.